Star Wars and Indiana Jones are contemporaries, that's why I usually mention them in the same time-period.

I was mostly talking about Lucas movies from the mid-80's through the 1990's, after his Star Wars and Indy creations.

By the way, Spielberg directed Indy and was hugely successful in bringing it to the screen.

I'm not saying he should direct Ep. III though, but he could do it if asked. (I don't think he'd be the right person for the job.)

The point, GL has directed too few movies, to properly judge him as a director.

It is true, after Appocalypse now, Coppola hasn't made too many memorable movies, but partially the reason for this is he got too caught up, in experimentations which drove him bankrupt in the mid-80's.

And, Spielberg has had a rich history as a director, remember Schindler's list?

Spielberg also has had a very successful career as a producer, with such classics as Back to the Future, Shrek, Who framed Roger Rabbit, Cape Fear, Goonies etc.

Little_Younglin don't get me wrong, I personally like Willow. But truely Lucas's greatest achievement has been ILM and his breakthrough's in the technological arena. THX, Skywalker Sound, Digital film etc. And that's to be proud of.

Yes. I'm not sure what the point is here, or maybe it's gotten lost by now. IMO, Portman isn't that good of an actress to start with, although she was better as a child. She's certainly not in the same league as Neeson, McDiarmid, or August, all of whom have given better performances in other movies. But their better performances in those movies doesn't mean their acting in TPM is bad.

I was saying that I can tell a good performance from comparison. You said it doesn't make sense. I explained further and you now seem to agree. Go back and re-read it if you've forgotten.

Yes. They'd show restrained emotion, which is what Padme did. I got the picture that she was distressed even without her breaking down and sobbing. She was clearly very angry during the Senate scene, when she called for a vote of no confidence, but decorum demanded that she not show it outside an elevated voice tone.

Going around in circles we are. Let's agree to disagree.

And my point: so what?

My point: Invasion was not an everday occurence so it would have shook her and the advisors more than it did. You said it has happened before and implied with "this time you have gone to far". I said that could mean anything. I really don't want to re-iterate every point from the first post. If you still want to discuss, catch up or leave it. No hard feelings.

Not necessarily.

So I say it was probable IMHO. Not necesarily? No, but probable IMHO.

So did Padme.

She had the balls to be Queen even when in danger and also gave orders as Queen. I say make the gutsy decoy Queen then.

No, it sounds like monotone. And why do you think she sat around deciding when to switch to monotone? I don't really get what you're complaining about here.

I think you are forgetting the previous posts now. So, I won't continue.

Again, I don't get what it is you're complaining about here. It just seems like complaining for the sake of complaining.

And on that note I might call it quits debating with you. *sigh*... I tried.

I was mostly talking about Lucas movies from the mid-80's through the 1990's, after his Star Wars and Indy creations

Well, after 1989, (the last Indy), he just (to my knowledge) wrote the story of Radioland Murders and was experimenting in TV with Young Indy, toying with the idea of retaking SW.

By the way, Spielberg directed Indy and was hugely successful in bringing it to the screen.

Hey, you are discussing it with the wrong man! I wholeheartedly agree.

I'm not saying he should direct Ep. III though, but he could do it if asked. (I don't think he'd be the right person for the job.)

Here we agree, too. So, what we were discussing? .

The point, GL has directed too few movies, to properly judge him as a director.

There are some examples of directors that are considered great despite their few jobs: Terrence Malick just directed 3 movies, Charles Laughton just one, and Ridley Scott was considered a great director in the mid 80's for just two films: Alien and Blade Runner (IMHO the only great films from him). Stanley Kubrick is one of the greatest directors of all time, and he just directed 10 movies between 1956 and 1999.

It is true, after Appocalypse now, Coppola hasn't made too many memorable movies, but partially the reason for this is he got too caught up, in experimentations which drove him bankrupt in the mid-80's

Hey, I wasn't jumping on Coppola. He can do as he pleases, he will be one of the greatest in my eyes just for The Godfather, but I also like The Conversation and Apocalypse Now, and I had a good time with Dracula and Tucker.

And, Spielberg has had a rich history as a director, remember Schindler's list?

Yes, I remember Schindler's List. I remember it as a wonderful movie dealing with a heartbreaking story. A flawless movie... just till ten minutes before the end. Then I forget all that happen till the credits roll. I have flashes of a pointless ten-minute footage of people putting little stones on a grave, and I just pretend this ten minutes don't exist. But I am disgressing now.

I like a lot of movies by Spielberg. I like Jaws, all Indys, Empire of the Sun, Schindler's List, Saving Private Ryan, A.I. and Minority Report. I have personal problems with E.T. and Close Encounters, but I can see they are very good movies. But I also remember Jurassic Park as a no-so-good movie with groundbreaking FX, Amistad as a mediocre movie with too much footage, and 1941 as crap. I can't tell anything about Always and Hook, because I haven't seen them, but the general consensus is that they are failures, too. As you see, I think Spielberg is a great director, I'm going to be the first in line to see Catch Me If You Can mostly because of him, but he is not failure-proof. Nobody is.

My point bringing up the names of Coppola and Spielberg was that it's not fair looking outside somebody's most important job, the whole work must be taken to judge.

Lucas's greatest achievement has been ILM and his breakthrough's in the technological arena. THX, Skywalker Sound, Digital film etc. And that's to be proud of.

Maybe. But he will always be remembered as the creator of the Star Wars universe. It's just like one of those psychological test: you say Spielberg, the average Joe Moviegoer will answer E.T., you say Coppola, Joe says The Godfather, and when you say Lucas, Star Wars would be in our friend Joe's mind. And that's to be proud of, too.

At the very least, he's just as situated with his vision now as he was when he filmed ANH. The man has a rich visual flare, and he shows it with a grace and tact that few of his contemporaries are able to match.